Metrics Evaluation (Ass 1) (1*)

1

Dashboard Metrics Evaluation Example Note: The dashboards and data presented in this example assignment are made up. Do not use them in developing your own assessment submission. They’re provided only as examples of how data could be formatted and referred to when you create your assessment. The first section of this example shows two dashboards containing metrics that the evaluation is based upon. If you’re using the data from the Dashboard and Health Care Benchmark Evaluation simulation, you’re not expected to create new tables to include in your submission. However, be sure to reference the data from the media simulation in your evaluation. If you choose to use a dashboard or other data from your place of practice, you’re expected to provide the data in compliance with HIPAA. The second section is the evaluation of the data presented in the metrics and represents proficient-level work for all of the criteria in the scoring guide.

2

Sepsis Dashboards from Eagle Creek Hospital Third Quarter Sepsis Intervention Compliance

at Eagle Creek Hospital for Adults Presenting with Sepsis

Intervention Needed Completed Compliance Percentage

Initial lactate within 3 hours 27 27 100% Blood cultures drawn prior to antibiotics 27 19 70% Antibiotics administered within 3 hours 27 24 89% Fluid resuscitation if in septic shock within 3 hours 17 15 88%

Vasopressors if hypotension persists after fluid resuscitation or lactate > 4mmoL/L within 6 hours

10 6 60%

Overall 108 91 84%

Third Quarter Sepsis Intervention Compliance and Inpatient Mortality (Sample)

Patient ID # of Interventions

Needed # of Interventions

Completed Inpatient Mortality 1000 3 2 0

1009 4 4 1 1014 5 5 0 1017 5 5 0 1060 3 1 1 1074 5 4 1 1084 4 2 1 1087 5 5 0 1094 3 3 0 1106 4 4 0

Note: The staffing benchmark for nurse staffing in this unit is 2 patients per nurse. Monthly average staffing for the unit is 2 nurse workload units. The average number of patients in the unit per month in the third quarter was 6.75.

3

To the Director of Safety Compliance:

I have reviewed the data that you sent my way regarding our compliance with sepsis measures

and intervention compliance, plus the sample of our third quarter inpatient mortality. The

following contains my evaluation of the data, which shows that there are definitely areas that the

organization needs to improve, as well as a proposal for a specific area and target for

improvement.

Evaluation of dashboard metrics

There are numerous underperformances in the metrics regarding compliance for sepsis

measures at Eagle Creek Hospital. From the dashboard regarding compliance of performing the

prescribed measures and procedures, the two that stand out are the 70% compliance rate on

drawing blood cultures prior to administering antibiotics, and the 60% compliance rate on

administering vasopressors for those patients that require them.

In the case of failing to complete blood draws for cultures prior to administering broad-

spectrum antibiotics, this creates a risk that there will be an inability to confirm infection and the

responsible pathogen (Dellinger, et al, 2013). This could result in inefficient or ineffective

interventions for helping a patient. Further, by failing to confirm infection from the start,

unnecessary and wasteful care interventions could be performed or ordered for patients.

In the case of the failure to administer vasopressors, we are truly gambling with the lives

of our patients. As the Surviving Sepsis Campaign reinforces, “vasopressor therapy is required

to sustain life and maintain perfusion in the face of life-threatening hypertensions” (Dellinger, et

al, 2013). The essential nature of compliance with regard to administering this intervention can

be seen in our sample of data regarding compliance and inpatient mortality. Of the four patients

that required vasopressors to be administered, three received them and one did not. The one

that did not passed away. A benchmarking study that included patient data from 2004 to 2009

found that the in-hospital mortality ranged from 14.7% to 29.9% (Gaieski, et al, 2013). Based on

4

our sample data, Eagle Creek Hospital has a 40% mortality rate. This is unacceptable, even in a

small data sample.

Analysis of challenges in achieving acceptable performance

There are two main challenges facing the organization and the care unit primarily

responsible for care of adult patients presenting with sepsis. The first issue is that the unit was

understaffed throughout the third quarter. On a per-month average basis during the third

quarter, the unit was understaffed by 1.375 nurse workload units. This is problematic from the

standpoint that interventions may not have been performed because of the lack of appropriate

staffing. Additionally, from an ACA compliance standpoint, we have not been staffing at the

mandated benchmark for the unit. I understand that hiring additional staff poses its own

logistical and financial challenges. However, it appears that additional staffing is required for this

care unit. It is either that or we will need to start diverting patients to other care facilities, which

could compound any financial challenges already faced by our organization.

The second challenge, which is also a potential cause of sepsis interventions not being

appropriately administered, is that Eagle Creek Hospital does not have currently have a

formalized policy or practice guidelines for any of our care providers at any level of the

organization. There is an understanding that the Society of Critical Care Medicine has produced

the definitive guidelines for practice around treating adult sepsis (Society of Critical Care

Medicine, n.d.). However, there are no policies or procedures for how people within Eagle Creek

should be applying these resources to their pracitce.

Specific target for improvement and suggested actions

Looking at the data in the two dashboards, it would seem that creating a plan to ensure

compliance with the five recommended sepsis interventions that we are currently tracking is the

best course of action. This recommendation is coming from both a patient safety improvement

and ethical care standpoint. Seventy-five percent of the inpatient mortality in the sample data

5

from the third quarter was seen in patients that did not receive the full suite of interventions that

they should have. This is unacceptable. Guidelines need to be put into place for our care teams

to follow, and a training program should be designed to introduce our nurses and doctors to the

new practice guidelines. This program also needs to emphasize the importance of compliance

with performing all necessary interventions from a patient safety standpoint.

Admittedly, this approach does not address our nurse staffing shortage. However, by

formalizing training and educating the staff that we do have, hopefully we can mitigate some of

the staffing challenges while a solution for them is worked out with human resources and

finance.

Thank you for your time. I hope this report has addressed all of the questions you had in

mind when you sent me this data. If there needs to be further work regarding this issue, please

come see me. I would be interested in helping to shape the direction that the organization will

take in developing the policy and practice guidelines for ensuring proper care of patients who

are presenting sepsis symptoms.

References

Dellinger, R. P., Levy, M. M., Rhodes, A., Annane, D., Gerlach, H., Opal, S. M., . . . Moreno, R. (2013). Surviving sepsis campaign: International guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock, 2012. Intensive Care Medicine, 39(2), 165–228.

Gaieski, D. F., Edwards, J. M., Kallan, M. J., & Carr, B. G. (2013). Benchmarking the incidence and mortality of severe sepsis in the United States. Critical Care Medicine, 41(5), 1167– 1174.

Society of Critical Care Medicine. (n.d.). Surviving sepsis campaign. Retrieved from http://www.survivingsepsis.org/Pages/default.aspx